2006 Supreme(SC) 130

2006(2) Supreme 162
Supreme Court of India
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Arijit Pasayat & R.V. Raveendran, JJ.
S.L. Srinivasa Jute Twine Mills P. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
Union of India & Anr. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6777 of 2003
(With Civil Appeal Nos. 6778 to 6780 of 2003)
Decided on 15-2-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.S. Rana, B. Rana, Vikrant Rana, Ms. Amaya Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents : K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Advocate, C.V. Subba Rao, Ajay Sharma, B.K. Prasad and Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocates.

Important point
Unless a different intention appears the repeal in a statute shall not affect any right, privilege or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the enactment repealed.

Headnote:Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952—Section 16 —Amendment Act 10 of 1998 to delete Section 16(1)(d) of the Act to take away benefit of “infancy protection” for period of three years from the date of establishment of Industry—Writ petition challenging the amendment—High Court dismissed writ holding that amendment was intended to take away certain benefits and question as to whether any vested right were sought to be affected would arise only when provisions were given retrospective operation—Appeal—Question was the effect of amendment on existing rights—Effect of repeal as dealt with in Section 6 of General Clauses Act—Unless a different intention appeared, repeal shall not affect any right, privilege or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the enactment repeal—Appellants were entitled to protection as had accrued to them prior to amendment in 1997—Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.

       Held : Unless a different intention appears the repeal shall not affect any right, privilege or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the enactment repeal. The effect of the amendment in the instant case is the same. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. (See Keshav Madhavan Memon v. State of Bombay AIR 1951 SC 128). But the rule in general is applicable where the object of the statute is to affect vested rights or to impose new burdens or to impair existing obligations. Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the Legislature to affect existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective only ‘nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis’. In the words of LORD BLANESBURG, “provisions which touch a right in existence at the passing of the statute are not to be applied retrospectively in the absence of express enactment or necessary intendment.” (See Delhi Cloth Mills & General Co. Ltd. v. CIT, Delhi AIR 1927 PC 242). “Every statute, it has been said”, observed LOPES, L.J., “which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions already past, must be presumed to be intended not to have a retrospective effect.” (See Amireddi Raja Gopala Rao v. Amireddi Sitharamamma AIR 1965 SC 1970). As a logical corollary of the general rule, that retrospective operation is not taken to be intended unless that intention is manifested by express words or necessary implication, there is a subordinate rule to the effect that a statute or a section in it is not to be construed so as to have larger retrospective operation than its language renders necessary. (See Reid v. Reid, (1886) 31 Ch D 402). In other words close attention must be paid to the language of the statutory provision for determining the scope of the retrospectivity intended by Parliament. (See Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (AIR 1989 SC 1933). The above position has been highlighted in “Principles of Statutory Interpretation” by Justice G.P. Singh. (Tenth Edition, 2006) at PP. 474 and 475). In The State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Shri Triloki Nath Khosa & Others (1974(1) SCC 19) and in Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah & Ors. (1997(6) SCC 623), this Court held that provision which operates to affect only the future rights without affecting the benefits or rights which have already accrued or enjoyed, till the deletion, is not retrospective in operation. Above being the legal position, the judgments of the High Court are indefensible and are set aside. The appellants shall be entitled to the protection as had accrued to them prior to the amendment in 1997 for the period of 3 years starting from the date the establishment was set up irrespective of repeal of the provision for such infancy protection. (Paras 17 to 20)